Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Previous ArbCom discussion?

1) On her blog last year, ex-arb Kelly Martin remarked about the current arbs that, "rumor has it that they've traded over 600 emails to date on their internal mailing list discussing what to do about SlimVirgin and Jayjg, without coming to any decision or conclusion." [1]. If so, this might be relevant for this case. I guess the easiest way to confirm whether Kelly's statement is true or not is simply to ask directly. I'll phrase it as a yes or no question. Has the ArbCom, within the past year or so, held any discussions addressing concerns about SlimVirgin's and/or Jayjg's editing or administrative actions in Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

JP, you can't even say yes or no, even if it might pertain to this case? Cla68 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Discussions on the list are and will remain private. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

my view is that it would be inappropriate for jpgordon to comment further. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question from FT2

One question that seems important to check with all parties and anyone else:

It might be helpful to give some (simple) wiki-historic background on these matters (so to speak) and "how it reached where it is now", in addition to the usual discussion of the parties' conduct (how they have acted and its impact).

By that I mean, without setting out a fishing net or any kind of wild conspiracy-building, it might be useful to have a couple of comments on the extent to which this is about the conduct of specific individuals, and the extent (if any) to which the problematic conduct(s) are also driven by the playing out of some kind of underlying issue, dispute or division, such as groups, cliques, historic conflicts, or opposing agendas/viewpoints (if any).

I ask since this might be an important factor in assessing the conduct of the parties, in a fair and informed way, and against an appropriate context. Or it might not.

Comments (if any) on the evidence page please. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Further thought: Where possible I'd encourage those giving evidence (on either "side") to ensure they also give consideration to good faith explanations, as necessary. Whilst we're ultimately looking at users' conduct and its impact here, not every problematic action will have been undertaken for a disruptive or hostile reason. Up-front request for a good quality, reasoned discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Ncmvocalist

tbn = to be numbered.

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing, or unseemly conduct. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - standard, but slightly modified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

4) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Decorum

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats

6) The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators expected to lead by example

7) Administrators are expected to lead by example. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From a previous case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself

8) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

MeatBall:DefendEachOther

9) An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks (or threatening to issue blocks) in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified slightly from Tango case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Conduct outside Wikipedia

10) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From a previous case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Compliance

11) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

tbn) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk

1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to several remedies from previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of WebEx and Min_Zhu, he was admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. He was warned in the case of Agapetos angel and was instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. In the case of ScienceApologist, he was counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of bringing up two-year old issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They demonstrate a continuing, long-term pattern of inappropriate behaviour. This indicates that FeloniousMonk's recent actions are not an aberrance from the norm which could be put down to circumstance, rather that his behaviour has always been this way. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

2) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement in using his administrative tools ([2]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([3]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([4]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given ([5]).

2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement in using his administrative tools ([6]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([7]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([8]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([9]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given ([10]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Still working on this (sort of). Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to findings and remedies in previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of Lyndon LaRouche 2, the Committee made a finding that she engaged in personal attacks, and she was cautioned not to make any personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. In the case of Israeli apartheid, she was admonished not to use his administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. She was also reminded in that case to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no ArbCom finding that SlimVirgin misused the admin tools during the Israeli Apartheid situation. The only remedy that mentions her name in that case and orders a specific action is, "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." [11] Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

4) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement as an administrator, and has engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([12]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([13]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Still working on this (sort of). Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Repeated" poor judgment with respect to the administrative tools is not currently demonstrated in the evidence. Of your two examples, the WP:V protection warring is inappropriate, but somewhat stale if (and only if) it was an isolated incident. (It happened in July 2007, but if there are other similar incidents, it is obviously an issue.) As for the Category talk:Animal rights activists thing, I'm scratching my head on that one. She moved the discussion of Category talk:Animal rights activists to Category talk:Animal rights movement (list), then deleted the latter. She copied and pasted the content to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights so the discussion was able to continue. There's an obvious reason for centralizing the discussion on a project page rather than having it potentially on multiple cat talk pages, so I have no problem with her intentions there. Moving/deleting the page was a rather bad idea for GFDL reasons - the better alternative would have been to copy/paste it with an edit summary crediting the authors, then blank the original discussion. But this is more an incorrect use from a technical standpoint than it is an intentional abuse. It's important to differentiate between someone abusing the tools and making an incorrect decision because they don't have an engineering or law degree. --B (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But the finding is about her (SV's) judgement as an administrator (with respect to being subject to a previous remedy, continuing with incivility and most importantly - principle 7) - it clearly needs to be worded better though. I haven't gone into her use of admin tools like for FM, due to the current lack of evidence on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

FeloniousMonk

NOTE - I have withdrawn remedies 1, 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1.2) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked, and he is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section. He may apply to have his administrative privileges reinstated at anytime by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

1.4) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.

1.6) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely, and he is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Corrective action should take place in increments of increasing severity. The first step for an admin with problematic behavior should be desysopping. If the behavior isn't corrected, then more severe penalties can be placed on the table. Cla68 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. (Removed some previous proposals) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some middle ground? Like an indefinite desysop without a ban from the project? I don't know what a ban would accomplish at this point (other than maybe a topic ban, harassment parole, or something like that.) --B (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there should be - I'll add it shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be jocking. A ban and desysoping?? There is no evidence that would warrant such a remedy ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He is an editor who has been here since 2004, and an admin since 2005. He's been subject to remedies by ArbCom on several occasions for a variety of misconduct, and he engages in more misconduct in 2008. This is no joke. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we advocate using 88 mm antiaircraft cannon against houseflies? This is so far beyond all reason or proportion that it can hardly be taken seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ick. don't care for these. a simple suspension of admin, or deadmin options would be appropriate to discuss. maybe some manner of harrassment parole or some such, but likely not any sort of topic or site bans. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

1.1, 1.2, 1.3 all too harsh. FM's actions have not warranted a block; as his misdemeanours relate to misuse of his sysop rights, the appropriate remedy would be 1.4 (desysopping) or some such variant. Neıl 龱 08:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Given his 4 years here (3 years as an admin), and previous remedies, there is a heightened expectation for him not to violate basic user policy - not to make personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith or to be incivil. I don't think it was limited to misuse of sysop rights in such instances, as with edit-warring in a previous remedy. If the clear pattern stops upon desysopping, then I'd agree 1.4 is appropriate. However, I'm unconvinced it will stop upon such a step, so I'd rather he went through mentorship or probation (or if necessary, a block) accordingly until he fully understands and complies with (at minimum) basic policy so he meets such an expectation. In any case, 1.4 is a choice to consider. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the stuff about a volunteer mentor seems like it would just be insulting. As you said, he has been an admin for 3 years. I really don't think anything beyond desysopping is necessary, except possibly for a formal civility parole. --B (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Absurd remedies proposed

2) Ncmvocalists proposed remedies against FM are manifestly absurd; he is reproved for poor judgement and discouraged from editing arbcomm pages William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Far far too many words from Ncmv on this page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jossi

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists because of the community that creates it and maintains it. Because the community generates the majority of the encyclopedia's content, disagreements between editors occur. But if these disagreements are asserted in a context of bad faith, cynicism, and inter-personal animosity, editors suffer, the spirit of collaboration suffers, and ultimately the encyclopedia suffers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I can be said better, I am sure, but it is key to this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by IP:80.65.250.135

Proposed principles

Communications outside of Wikipedia

1) Although Wikipedia is NOT a free speech zone, it also is NOT some kind of regime / cult aimed at repressing free speech outside of the project. Editors are free to discuss their thoughts, feelings and perspectives with members of the press. Being on first name terms with journalists is likewise entirely acceptable. Even ones that criticise Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't perfect and as worded could be wikilawyered or gamed, but consider something like this. It's a rough view on it...

"The primary concerns of Wikipedia related to editors' communications are 1/ the prevention or reduction of gross breach of integrity of the editorial process, and 2/ the prevention or reduction of social friction, or other actions, that might detract editors from congenially collaborating on the objectives of the project, or significantly impede the aims of the project. Constructive criticism and observations on all levels can be an essential part of this, and editors are not to be censured for privately held views expressed reasonably or which do not imapct the project. In exceptional cases some kinds of communication may be incompatible with the degree of cameraderie needed for collaboration. Editors are expected to bear these in mind in their communications that might impact on the project. But otherwise Wikipedia as a project has no involvement in user communication."

I think that's more the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Shouldn't need saying but apparently it does so let's get it over with. 80.65.250.135 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point. When you are on friendly terms with a journalist, citing the journalist in support of your own opinions within article space is seriously inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Using the card of being in good terms with a journalist as leverage in editorial disputes is inappropriate, divisive, and against the principles of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit, but the wording could be better. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG, Jossi, that doesn't sound too good. I did a search in the evidence so far for "journalist" and "Metz" and did not find anything from either of you that actually establishes the sort of connection you refer to, do you have evidence you are planning to introduce about this? Because if not, about all that cane be said is "that's true, but what's your point?" ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe take this to the talk for that page, because I looked at the evidence already, as I said, and I don't see where there's any "leverage" ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, dave souza and FeloniousMonk do mention "journalist" in their evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Supposed attack subpage (was mentioned by SV)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Uh... I read here that keeping tabs on other users was completely acceptable, and one user even specifically mentions that they're used in preparation for arbcom or RfC's. I fail how to see how it's an attack page. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My impolitic-original-research thought is that when you see the univers as us v. them, everything discussing your actions is an attack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to now state my agreement with Kwsn here. Cla has manipulated a perfectly acceptable means of preparing "evidence", as it were, for a future RfC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. are you saying it is or is not an attack page? and is or is not an acceptable way to prepare Rfc's or arbcomm evidence sections? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG's evidence

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence)The diffs JzG provides in his evidence are annotated with my blue italicised comments, as follows:

• [14] apparent Wikistalking - snide comment, but not stalking, not sure spiteful is right
• [15] Snide and unhelpful attack, combined with dismissal of the issue of harassment of editors - sarcasm
• [16] on the matter of antisocialmedia - not sure why this is even here, seems to be Cla68 helping to build a better article - how is this spiteful?
• [17] links to a piece by Cade Metz (who Cla68 knows, Metz having been his outlet in the "secret"! mailing list story) to further his campaign against Jossi (incidentally, the article is characteristically inaccurate, failing to spot that Jossi !voted keep on the criticism fork afd). The irony! Cla689 creating a section on "conflict of interest" while pursuing an apparent conflict of interest... - raising Jossi's COI on Prem Rawat (something Arbcom itself subsequently became aware of, and Jossi himself agreed to refrain from editing Prem Rawat and related articles - how is this evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?
• [18] champions Piperdown - Piperdown was unblocked - how is arguing for a user to be unblocked being spiteful, particularly considering the user WAS unblocked?
• [19], [20] More Wikistalking - first diff is Cla68 (correctly) removing weasel words, second is thanbking someone for showing patience (how are these evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?)
• [21] part of a brief edit war to try to drag Jayjg into a contentious arbitration case, reverted by people including clerks and arbitrators numerous times. - a trawl of the history of that time - [22], shows no such reversions by Cla68.
• [23] a dig at Jimbo and an indication that he is on first-name terms with Metz, a long-standing sniper at Wikipedia - asking Jimbo a question? Calling someone by their first name? How is this spiteful?
• [24] a sockpuppet promotes Cla68's false allegations published in the Register - nothing to to with Cla68 - irrelevant
• [25] trolling re Swalwell, Alberta, a part of the SV = LM meme - agree here, Cla68's comment was not needed
• [26], once again citing Metz. - what? Providing a reference is spiteful?

To summarise, JzG's "evidence" appears to be a collation of smears. Not one of the diffs JzG gives to back up his description of Cla68 as "spiteful" give much weight to that claim, when viewed either in isolation or as a group. At worst, there are perhaps two examples of sarcasm within the 11 bulletpoints JzG uses. Neıl 龱 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm very disappointed in the seeming misuse of diffs in the evidence section (this group specifically, and others more generally). A little more good faith reading of folks comments goes a long way towards not thinking they are attacking you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: